French Uniforms in LGDR7

Really like the drawing of the French Colonial Uniforms and the picturers of the French Great & Good........I now know exactly who I have to shot........Joke

Ref the whole very interesting debates on:

A) What is the best weapon for Cavalry?.......1) Lance? Heavy or Light? 2) Sword & Pistol........and is Rapier or Sabre better? 3) Composite bow 4) Long Fire Arm or 5) Polish Hussar kitchen sink of Lance, X2 Pistols, Carbine, X2 Swords, Axe, plus X2 wagons and 4 to 6 servents per Hussar?

B) Should Infantry use shock tactics or firepower?

C) Should Cavalry Charge at the Gallop or the trot?

D) Are fancy uniforms the best way of helping own morale and making the foe feel inferior?

E) How many ranks should Infantry use?

What players should be aware that there this is not like the replacement of the Musket with the Bolt action rifle........there is no one system which is better than alternatives in all circumstances and your choice should be based on both your positions historic likes/dislikes and on its likely threats.

Early in this thread the RKL came out as a Lancer fan and I am sure Commanders of "Western" Armies in G2 etc who have been brutally treated by Polish Winged Hussars with big nasty lances would agree with him about the evils of Polish Lancers. But in the 1690's the Hussars stopped carrying Lances because a big heavy Lance is no use if you are chaseing Cossack and Tartar Lt Cavalry Raiders.

Likewise some of the Elite French Household Cavalry are equiped with muskets/carbines for their day job of guarding the King since a Lance is not much use against Assasin with a pistol in an upstairs room. Oh and any French Player just has to class the Musketeers as elite Dragoons
and allow them to lead storming parties at Sieges. Ok you might not be happy to use your elite cavalry in this way but the have a reputation as the "bravest of the brave" to live up too.

Pretty much the same can be said about all the other choices........Charge at Gallop is better than the Trot right up to the point your Cavalry charge away from nfantry/artillery support at high speed into a bog/ambush etc on blown horses.

French/Swedish/Ottoman Infantry shock tactics are better then firepower right up to the point that they are either forced to defend or the opposition deploys behind a bog/field works.

Thin ranks are better for fireing and dont suffer as badly from Artillery...........but worse for shock attacks and holding off cavalry attacks from the front.

Basically its a game of Stone/paper/Sissors and the skill is in A) Knowing yourself and B) Knowing your foe and making sure you have the right tools in the right place to do the job.

Finally it has to be said you can have the perfect weapons, perfect drill, heroic morale, able and experienced commanders and really nice Uniforms but if the bog standard opposition hit your Prussians when they are on SL 6 after months in open trenches you are still going to get hammered........is this not correct Jason?

Yes Stuart your right, you can do your best to prpare your army for everything. then when the war comes you get bogged down in a siege then all the prior preparation goes out the window. Especially when you get attacked by someone who doesn't ven bother declaring war on you, just pops up and gets his troops to swarm all over you.Or you get tangled up against an army that doesn't need to supply itself or pay for itself, as it fights on despite you having control of its financial resources plus all its supply bases. Still there is still the chance that the army will get a chance to revenge itself.

In the debate on weapons / tactics. I come out in favour of the Sabre and Carbine for cavalry, Having looked into reports left from the period, it appears that many cavalry officers thought that once they got in among the lancers then the lancers were useless. Admitted the lance in a terror weapon to look at, however much like the pike, it is possiable to get under it or avoid it. some nations only equipped the front rank of lancer regiments with lancers, because of this. The lance is also very unweildy, a bugger in wet weather, and useless for patrolling.

The speed and weight of charge are both important, as is a compact mass,controlled charges that keep formation seen to have been the flavour of the day. The charge was broken down into several distinct parts with speed gradually being increased as the point of impact is reached. A cardinal sin was to receive a charge at the halt. The best point of attack was to attempt to get on the bridle hand of your opponent as that put him at a distinct disadvantage.

One of the reasons for denser formations of 4 or 5 ranks was also that the files behind the front rank could in theory load weapons and pass them ot the front rank to increase the rate of fire, this is something the French devised. Two ranks were considered too thin to withhold cavalry attacks, plus they were too long to control on the battle field. In hte Napoleonic wars Brits introduced it because units were so weak that they needed to cover the frontage on the battle field and three ranks were using up manpower they didn't have. the average strength of units in the Peninsular was 500 men.

On uniforms I actually went away from all the fancy uniforms, in a way to cut army costs I introduced a standard uniform for infantry and cavalry. Also standardised officers uniforms & cut down on all the gold braid. I have tried issuing new uniforms to units who suffered from low morale, it did absolutly no good what so ever, but regular issues of Schnapps kept everyone happy.

There were a number of differant opinions in the Age of Battles. So I would guess it is only right that there should still be so many varying opinions now. What is clear is that differant circumstances require differant tactics and methods. So maybe draw up a drill book with that in mind. when on the defensive, or in the attack that your troops adopt differant fighting tactics.

On the subjet of weaponry,
The Austrians developed a twin barreled musket for there light troops one barrel was a soothbore the other was rifled. I have not been able to find out much about it's effectiveness, has anyone else ?
In theory it is another of those ideas that seem to cater for all possabilities, with long range skirmishing , and a rapid(er) loading for defence against cavalry.

J Flower wrote:On the subjet of weaponry,
The Austrians developed a twin barreled musket for there light troops one barrel was a soothbore the other was rifled. I have not been able to find out much about it's effectiveness, has anyone else ?
In theory it is another of those ideas that seem to cater for all possabilities, with long range skirmishing , and a rapid(er) loading for defence against cavalry.

I have heard of the weapon, came across a reference to them in regards Austrian light infantry early in the Napoleonic Wars. About all I can recall about it was that it was heavier than a normal musket (which makes sense I guess) and were phased out early in the 1800s.

If they were phased out I suspect they may have been too expensive for the financially strained Austrian Government .

Austrian Light troops also made use of an early form of air rifle I beleive, I have read a reference that Napoleon ordered that anyone captured in possession of one was to be shot. As it was an ungentlmanly weapon in his opinion, due the lack of smoke which norally gave away the position of a gunpowder weapon.

I suppose I will have to have a go and see if the clever people at the univercity can develop such a weapon. It was possiable at the time so I guess it should work.

I have tried developing a double-barreled musket some years ago, it was very heavy and quite impracticable for use in the field.

Maybe with a shorter barrel, the rifling would ensure accuracy albeit a reduced range, the other barrel is more a clos ein weapon anyway so lack of range would not be a problem, I'll give it a try anyway if I succed then I'll let you know.

RKL-where did you get the template for the uniforms? Are they easy to produce/colour in (as it were), just thinking could be interesting for others of us who go into this sort of detail in game, to perhaps have a go at doing them for other nations.

Thanks Louis

I have had a quick look at the website and it is an amazing find! He has clearly put a lot of time and effort into it, as you have with your uniforms, and it is a resource well worth us using.

I know what you mean about British regimental colours (I did some work with the National Army Museum on new exhibitions that required me to do some reading up a couple of years back) and the reasoning behind who wore what left my head spinning.

Of course, playing (other than France) a non-European power means I might need to have a chat with a arty-computer literate friend to see if they can create a similar template that i can use for my other position...but if/when G9 happens I am going to go for a European position so there template will be extremely useful...

I do hope that perhaps some other players might use them as I know a few others have gone into quite a bit of detail on uniforms and it would be interesting to see what they imagine their designs look like.

A point to keep in mind is that in the days before colour fast dyes all uniforms would fade and dyes would run into each other so after a couple of months on campaign even original kit would look nothing like the original uniform.

Plus a lot of it would have been replaced by bought or plundered items of different colour, cut, design etc.

I agree that many RSM'S take a very keen interest in the state of soldiers uniforms, for the rank & file it is/was a lot of hard work to keep the uniform & assosiated equipment clean, tidy & serviceable.

Most replacement uniforms were drawn from the soldiers wages, with either a monthly stoppage or payment on replacement.

A Great coat was supposed to last two years, before replacement. There were no Left & right fitting boots, spare soles were carries & were replaced by the unit cobbler.
Some uniforms were cut in such a way that movement was restricted, quality was also a factor as costs were kept low to ensure that as much of the clothing allowance money went into the pockets of the officer responciable, afterall they had to somehow get the money back from paying for there commission.

One of the reasons for the large amount of irish serving in the English army was that the irish accepted just about anything that they received (clothes, equipment, weapons etc). The English wanted better, and more expensive clothes.